Our founding fathers, being keenly attuned to the goal of personal freedom, accurately analyzed the manner in which freedom was so trampled by the political systems from which they had fled in Europe. Their genius was the recognition that tyranny must be expected from unfettered governmental power. How wise they were, to separate our government into three branches, such that each could keep an eye on the other two.

But at this date, we’ve been inundated with another kind of thinking. John Dewey, from his post at Columbia University, exerted a socialist influence that has since spread to most of our educational system. Instead of a healthy distrust of governmental power, we look to it as our nanny. “Absurdity” is not too strong a word to describe many of the things that some folks believe government should do. A very recent example is the decision to spend tax money for sex-change surgery. We could write a whole catalog of such anecdotal cases, which to freedom-oriented people, are absurd to the point of insanity.

One might ask, “What does tax supported sex-change surgery have to do with freedom? Can’t we be a free society and also use our government resources to solve various and sundry problems?” In fact, we cannot. There is no bottom to the pit of various and sundry. With our focus on various and sundry, we lose track of the current status of the freedom which is being traded for various and sundry.

The Liberals, those who advocate a “nanny government”, are not in tune with the American people whose mind-set is oriented toward freedom. As one who has lived in a country with a totalitarian police state, where freedom is not even considered except as part of a lie, (the lie being that freedom means to live under their system) this writer knows some parallels between the totalitarian police state and our American Liberals and/or Socialists.

They both claim that the government is the solution.

They both assume the people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

They both assume that they, the elite, are somehow superior, and thus, have the right to rule.

They both are afraid of the people; so much so, that they try to eliminate free speech. (The police state does so by forbidding assembly; the U.S. Liberals do so by such devices as “political correctness”.)

They both fear an armed citizenry. The totalitarians, since they have the power, simply forbid it, while the American Liberals use all their propaganda machinery to make it appear that the right to bear arms is Neanderthal, and is not connected to the issue of freedom of the citizenry. (Would an emperor want his peasants armed?)

They both spring from the secular humanist philosophy which dictates that freedom is a gift from the state, as opposed to the thinking of our Founding Fathers, who recognized that freedom is God-given, thus the state must be suspected and prevented from taking the people’s God given freedom. Genius!
Liberalism is a kissing-cousin to Socialism, as Socialism is to Communism. Let’s check this out. Maybe I paint with too wide a brush. The parallels above reveal a kinship between Liberalism and Socialism. Let’s compare Socialism with Communism.

According to the dictionary, Socialism is the system in which the major means of production are owned by the state. My dictionary describes “Communism” as the state controlling the means of production, the distribution, and the consumption.

This all sounds so very sanitary, but in real life, it has not been so. In the Communist countries of China and Russia, millions upon millions of innocent citizens have been killed (the ultimate loss of freedom) for no just reason, whatever. Not in wars, just the fact that the government has the guns. The lucky ones are merely sent off to die in prison labor camps. The experience of Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a prime example. He was a loyal officer in the Russian Army, fighting against Hitler’s Nazi forces, when he wrote a letter home mentioning his danger on account of the skill of a certain German officer who was directing the enemy forces. Solzhenitsyn had no rights, no freedom. His letter was intercepted, and his mention of the skill of the German officer was twisted. The Communist leaders decided that he was disloyal, on account of his “praise” of the German officer. For this totally innocent letter home, he spent eight years at hard labor in the freezing Siberian prison camp. After they let him out of prison, he was forced to live in Central Asia for another 4 years, before being allowed to return to his normal life.

With my own eyes, I saw the bullet chips on the statues and marks on the pavement left by the army tanks, which had run over the tents where the students slept in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China in early June of 1989. These students were accused of being criminals and enemies of the State. What did they do, to be judged thusly? They had PEACEFUL demonstrations asking for a bit of FREEDOM. They were totally unarmed. They didn’t even have sticks or stones. What did the Socialist state use against them? Guns and tanks! Under Socialism, the people have no rights. There is no appeal for justice. In the totalitarian socialist state, justice is whatever the government leaders SAY it is. If you don’t like it, tough beans, Charlie!

Why get all worked up over things that happen in other countries? The reason is that Liberalism, Socialism and Communism are LINKS IN THE SAME CHAIN. The chain designed to destroy freedom. If we are so foolish as to be blind to the connection between American Liberalism and the living Hells of Socialism and Communism, we will suffer the same fate as the forgotten heroes who were killed by their government in Tiananmen Square.


Wesley Bailor, a native Oregonian and teacher, taught school in Arizona and Michigan. For three years, he lived in China, teaching and working with a people-to-people organization.